Assessing Responsible Innovation Training

Bernd Carsten Stahl; Christine Aicardi; Laurence Brooks; Peter J. Craigon; Mayen Cunden; Saheli Datta Burton; Martin De Heaver; Stevienna De Saille; Serena Dolby; Liz Dowthwaite; Damian Eke; Stephen Hugues; Paul Keene; Vivienne Kuh; Virginia Portillo; Danielle Shanley; Melanie Smallman; Michael Smith; Jack Stilgoe; Inga Ulnicane; Christian Wagner; Helena Webb

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063

Assessing Responsible Innovation Training

Bernd Carsten Stahl^*, Christine Aicardi, Laurence Brooks, Peter J. Craigon, Mayen Cunden, Saheli Datta Burton, Martin De Heaver, Stevienna De Saille, Serena Dolby, Liz Dowthwaite, Damian Eke, Stephen Hugues, Paul Keene, Vivienne Kuh, Virginia Portillo, Danielle Shanley, Melanie Smallman, Michael Smith, Jack Stilgoe, Inga UlnicaneChristian Wagner, Helena Webb

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Editorial

Abstract

There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Responsible Technology
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063
Publication status	Published - 10 Jun 2023

Keywords

responsible innovation
doctoral training
education
assessment

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063Licence: CC BY-NC-ND

Cite this

Stahl, B. C., Aicardi, C., Brooks, L., Craigon, P. J., Cunden, M., Datta Burton, S., De Heaver, M., De Saille, S., Dolby, S., Dowthwaite, L., Eke, D., Hugues, S., Keene, P., Kuh, V., Portillo, V., Shanley, D., Smallman, M., Smith, M., Stilgoe, J., ... Webb, H. (2023). Assessing Responsible Innovation Training. Journal of Responsible Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063

@article{452beb5e0c6d41759a5a664a9522e8be,

title = "Assessing Responsible Innovation Training",

abstract = "There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.",

keywords = "responsible innovation, doctoral training, education, assessment",

author = "Stahl, {Bernd Carsten} and Christine Aicardi and Laurence Brooks and Craigon, {Peter J.} and Mayen Cunden and {Datta Burton}, Saheli and {De Heaver}, Martin and {De Saille}, Stevienna and Serena Dolby and Liz Dowthwaite and Damian Eke and Stephen Hugues and Paul Keene and Vivienne Kuh and Virginia Portillo and Danielle Shanley and Melanie Smallman and Michael Smith and Jack Stilgoe and Inga Ulnicane and Christian Wagner and Helena Webb",

year = "2023",

month = jun,

day = "10",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063",

language = "English",

journal = "Journal of Responsible Technology",

issn = "2666-6596",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Stahl, BC, Aicardi, C, Brooks, L, Craigon, PJ, Cunden, M, Datta Burton, S, De Heaver, M, De Saille, S, Dolby, S, Dowthwaite, L, Eke, D, Hugues, S, Keene, P, Kuh, V, Portillo, V, Shanley, D, Smallman, M, Smith, M, Stilgoe, J, Ulnicane, I, Wagner, C & Webb, H 2023, 'Assessing Responsible Innovation Training', Journal of Responsible Technology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessing Responsible Innovation Training

AU - Stahl, Bernd Carsten

AU - Aicardi, Christine

AU - Brooks, Laurence

AU - Craigon, Peter J.

AU - Cunden, Mayen

AU - Datta Burton, Saheli

AU - De Heaver, Martin

AU - De Saille, Stevienna

AU - Dolby, Serena

AU - Dowthwaite, Liz

AU - Eke, Damian

AU - Hugues, Stephen

AU - Keene, Paul

AU - Kuh, Vivienne

AU - Portillo, Virginia

AU - Shanley, Danielle

AU - Smallman, Melanie

AU - Smith, Michael

AU - Stilgoe, Jack

AU - Ulnicane, Inga

AU - Wagner, Christian

AU - Webb, Helena

PY - 2023/6/10

Y1 - 2023/6/10

N2 - There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.

AB - There is broad agreement that one important aspect of responsible innovation (RI) is to provide training on its principles and practices to current and future researchers and innovators, notably including doctoral students. Much less agreement can be observed concerning the question of what this training should consist of, how it should be delivered and how it could be assessed. The increasing institutional embedding of RI leads to calls for the alignment of RI training with training in other subjects. One can therefore observe a push towards the official assessment of RI training, for example in the recent call for proposals for centres for doctoral training by UK Research and Innovation. This editorial article takes its point of departure from the recognition that the RI community will need to react to the call for assessment of RI training. It provides an overview of the background and open questions around RI training and assessment as a background of examples of RI training assessment at doctoral level. There is unlikely to be one right way of assessing RI training across institutions and disciplines, but we expect that the examples provided in this article can help RI scholars and practitioners orient their training and its assessment in ways that are academically viable as well as supportive of the overall aims of RI.

KW - responsible innovation

KW - doctoral training

KW - education

KW - assessment

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2023.100063

M3 - Editorial

SN - 2666-6596

JO - Journal of Responsible Technology

JF - Journal of Responsible Technology

ER -

Assessing Responsible Innovation Training

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this